Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2966 (PNJ)

Phool Pati v. Haryana Urban Development Authority

2006-07-21

H.S.BHALLA, VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 13703 of 2003, C.W.P. No. 1741 of 2003 and C.W.P. No. 5023 of 2002 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from C.W.P. No. 13703 of 2003. 3. The skeletal facts require for adjudication of the controversy are that in the year 2001, applications were invited for allotment of residential plots of Free Hold Residential Plots in Sectors 27 and 28, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Some of the plots were reserved for freedom fighters. The petitioner was eligible under the said category and consequently.submitted an application. A draw of lots was conducted on November 20, 2001. In the aforesaid draw of lots, the petitioner was declared successful and consequently, a plot No. 50-P, Sector 27, Gurgaon was earmarked for her. Subsequently, in various communications made by HUDA, the name of the petitioner was reflected. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for issuing a formal allotment letter but the same was not done. On March 6, 2003, the Estate Officer issued a communication to the petitioner intimating her that the draw of lots in which the petitioner was successful had been cancelled. The aforesaid communication (Annexure P3) and the action of the official respondents has been challenged by the petitioner through the present petition. 4. Notice of motion was issued in this case on September 1, 2003. By way of an interim order, a plot was ordered to be reserved for her. The respondents put in appearance and maintained that since certain applicants had applied for plots but inadvertently their names had not been included in draw of lots, therefore, realising the aforesaid mistake, the draw of lots had been cancelled. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents vide order dated December 8, 2003, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition and directed that HUDA should hold fresh draw of lots for the allotment of the reserved category of plots in question, only in respect of the applications of those eligible applicants who had applied for the draw of lots held on November 20, 2001. 6. 6. Later on, a review application came to be filed on behalf of some of the applicants (added respondents No. 3 to 12) to the effect that during the pendency of the present petition, the official respondents had invited fresh applications and the aforesaid applicants had applied, for allotment of the plots. On receipt of the aforesaid applications from the aforesaid applicants, a fresh draw of lots was conducted and the aforesaid applicants (respondents No. 3 to 12) had remained successful in the draw of lots. Consequently. the aforesaid applicants maintained that in view of the fact that the interest or said applicants had accrued during the pendency of the present writ petition, therefore, the order dated December 8, 2003 was likely to adversely affect them and, therefore, was required to be recalled. On the aforesaid prayer made by the applicants, the order dated December 8, 2003 was recalled by a Division Bench vide order dated October 8. 2004 and the main case was restored back to its original number. It is in these circumstances that we are seized of the controversy involved in the case. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 8. At the outset, we may notice that Sh. Narender Hooda, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in view of the interim directions issued by this Court live plots for the writ petitioners in the three writ petitions had been reserved and the same were still available for the allotment. On account of the aforesaid fact, the learned Counsel maintains that even if the claim of the private respondents was to be conceded, even then without disturbing the claim of the aforesaid respondents, the claim of the petitioners in all the writ petitions could be satisfied. 9. Shri M.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel appearing for the newly added respondents No. 3 to 12 also concedes that the claim of the aforesaid private respondents No. 3 to 12 does not come in conflict with the claim made by the petitioners, inasmuch as five plots earmarked for the aforesaid petitioners have already been reserved and so have not been allotted. 10. Ms. 10. Ms. Vandhana Malhotara, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 also points out to specific averments made in para No. 2 of the written statement tiled by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the aforesaid plots earmarked for the petitioners have not been included for the allotment to the private respondents. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the claim of the private respondents stands already satisfied by the allotment of plots by subsequent draw of lots. The claim of the live petitioners in the three writ petitions can be fully satisfied from the five plots which have already been kept reserved by HUDA on account of the interim directions issued by this Court. 12. In these circumstances, we dispose of the present petitions with a direction that the aforesaid five plots which had been earmarked and kept reserved for the petitioners in the writ petitions by way of an interim order passed by this Court shall now be allotted to the petitioners. This would necessarily mean that the allotments made to private respondents No. 3 to 12 would remain undisturbed. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.